HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Click here to view full judgement.
Panigrahi, J. -
(1.) THE Petitioner has been convicted under Section 411 I.P.C. The only circumstance appearing against him is that some stolen articles were found in a pit in his 'Bari'. There is no other evidence on the prosecution side to connect the Petitioner either with the theft or with the concealment of the alleged stolen articles. It appears that Mohan Singh, the first accused, said in his examination under Section 342 that he had sold some articles to the Petitioner. The Magistrate, therefore, question the Petitioner as to whether he had purchased, to which the Petitioner said 'Yes'. It is on these facts that the Petitioner has been convicted. The question raised before me is whether the magistrate did not exceed his jurisdiction in putting a question to the Petitioner not warranted by the evidence recorded against him. There is not a little of evidence against him on the prosecution side that he purchased the stolen articles. The statement of a co -accused should not have been used to elicit information from the accused and convict him on his answer. The conviction of the Petitioner is improper. The revision is therefore allowed, the conviction and sentence passed against the Petitioner are set aside and he is directed to be set at liberty forthwith.;
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.